The Brain: Mental Creativity - Neurophysiology, Cognitive ...



The Brain: Mental Creativity

A Theory in Terms of Neurophysiology and Cognitive Psychology

4-29-05

by

Helmut Schwab

Princeton, N.J.

(based on an essay written in 1994)

Abstract:

Mental creativity is highly valued in modern society as the basis of innovation. It is a function of the brain. Better understanding of this function should result in higher creativity. A theory of mental creativity is proposed in this essay, based on four rather basic hypotheses. These basic hypotheses lead to the explanation of three neurophysiological phenomena that, jointly, produce mental creativity. Several consequences for creativity improvement are indicated.

(69)

Summary:

Three basic phenomena form the basis for mental creativity (not including artistic creativity) in terms of neurophysiology and cognitive psychology and must be explained first:

1. The sequencing of individual foreground thought phases in time - the natural selection of a course of thought.

2. The capability for focused thought.

3. The transition from subconscious to conscious thought.

This article demonstrates that only four rather basic premises, or hypotheses, are necessary and sufficient to explain these three phenomena. Understanding the phenomena then leads to the following results:

The strongest synaptic connection is selected for thought sequencing - with synaptic strength resulting from a variety of factors.

Mental creativity, as other constructive processes in nature, is combinatorial - using existing memory elements, sensory perceptions, and communicated information to form new or more complex concepts or systems of thought. Therefore, it is the quantity, attributed significance, diversity, and interconnectivity (addressability) of these elements in individuals or in teams that determine creativity.

Creative thought is provoked by new focus (new questions or perspectives) or newly available mental building blocks or perceptions.

Creativity is continuous (gap-less).

Alternating concentration and rest increase creativity.

Psychological factors (personality, temperament, and psychological environment) significantly influence creativity.

Consciousness is a virtual phenomenon resulting merely from memory for thought or perceptions.

The brain optimizes speed, economy, and personal comfort in handling common tasks, problems, or threats over exhaustiveness of inquiry, optimizing of results, and personal exposure.

A large part of modern innovation is derived merely from pattern recognition in observations.

Introduction

Mental creativity of the practical kind allowed humanity to develop civilizations (with artistic creativity leading to “cultures”). In modern times, creative thought is the most important brain process when it comes to working on scientific, technical, or business problems. Creativity leading to innovation is often presented as the key factor for industrial and national leadership. What do we know about this process of “mental creativity” in the way it really occurs, in the mind, in neurophysiological terms? How can we explain that a heap of fibrous cells in our body can come up with a new idea? How can we improve creativity where and when it is needed, in order to arrive at significant innovation?

We know that mental creativity is related to the frontal lobes of the brain and to, among other things, neural connectivity and the synaptic connections of the neurons therein. We may understand reflexes, memory formation, even individual visualizations. But what causes creative thought? What can the brain accomplish, and what can it not? How can one improve creativity? Knowledge in this area is still inadequate, theories are fragmented.

There is a wealth of empirical and circumstantial knowledge regarding creativity. Many different research and development institutions have tried many different practical approaches to improve the creativity of their scientists and other employees. Some methods worked better than others, some worked only for a short time. Behavioral approaches to the problem of creativity remain symptomatic as long as they are not sufficiently based on neurophysiological knowledge. Therefore, they are often inadequate.

Science often progresses by establishing underlying facts, then formulating premises or hypotheses leading to new theories. Research and experiments have to confirm the hypotheses and theories before they can be accepted as factual, often by confirming the theories’ predictions. Today, a comprehensive theory of mental creativity based on plausible or confirmable hypotheses, and on the level of nerval structure and nerval signaling, is required. This essay attempts to contribute to the establishment of just such a theory.

Definition of practical creative thought and innovation

The concept of “thought” is not well defined. It may include the totality of thought, or it may signify only a momentary phase of it. Physiologically, thoughts are brain processes on a neural signaling level. Large areas of the brain are dedicated to the processing of sensory information. Some brain nuclei are related to basic biological needs, drives, and emotions. However, the frontal lobes of the brain are associated with thought in solving scientific or practical problems, in important phases of pattern recognition (the base of much of innovation), and in developing strategies.

“Creative” thought (restricted to practical creativity) shall be defined here as the recognition or establishment of new thought associations or as the recognition of patterns. Innovation shall be defined here as the result of creative thought in the form of new and practically valid concepts or new systems of thought. Not included in the definition of creative thought in the context of this article are simple reflexes and memory look-up chores, such as counting (even though they may be seen as rudimentary creative thoughts). Nor is artistic creativity included; that is more strongly related to the sensory signal processing areas of the brain. Artistic creativity is also related to moods or emotions. These are closely related to mid-brain and limbic system structures of the brain.

The Approach

A neurophysiological and cognitive-psychological analysis of human creative thought encounters three basic phenomena or underlying processes of the mind. An explanation is required for each of them:

1. The sequencing of individual thought phases in time: What determines which course our thoughts take? Can that course be influenced?

2. The capability for focused thought: What makes it possible to focus thought on a specific topic, at least for a limited period of time? How is it possible that later thought returns to the original focus, as in later creative ideas?

3. The transition from subconscious to conscious thought, including the appearance of a sudden “idea”: Some of the best ideas emerge from the subconscious, often during periods of rest or distraction. Why? How can consciousness in this context be explained? How can sudden idea appearance be improved?

It is stipulated that an explanation of these three phenomena and their interaction is necessary and sufficient to explain the basic capability of the human brain for creative thought. This includes the ability to create new concepts and ever more complex systems of thoughts. It will be shown that four fairly basic premises or hypotheses are sufficient to explain the above phenomena.

The brain’s selection of a course in the sequencing of individual thought phases in time

Thought progresses endlessly through sequences of visualizations (visual images, sound images, fragrance or tactile visualizations, with language and numbers being combinations of these). Such visualizations are occasionally interrupted and sequences derailed by the occurrence of actual sensory perceptions, including the communication of other people’s thoughts. Individual visualizations in the mind are simultaneous activations (increased firing rate) of large groups of neurons with preestablished synaptic interconnections (memorization). See, for example, Edelman’s work at Scripps.

Neurons generally do not endlessly sustain their firing rate, even when continuously excited by synaptic or sensory inputs. In general, activation fades after a short time. This may be explained by fatigue. More likely, fading evolved in evolution because it provides specific benefits in neural signal processing. In sensory perception, fading under constant excitement allows for improved detection of variations, as in the detection of moving objects. In thought processes, fading of momentary visualizations is necessary to allow thought progression through sequencing to subsequent visualizations. As the neural group activation of one momentary visualization fades, another visualization is activated and can gain prevalence. Signal transmissions in the brain are in the range below 10 msec, indicating the possible high rate of thought (visualization) sequencing.

It is important to note that frontal lobe thought progression (uninfluenced by sensory perception) is one-dimensional. Thought does not divert in many directions simultaneously; only one visualization follows a given one at any one time. This is true specifically for conscious thought. There is some indication that some additional thought progression may occur subconsciously (multi-tasking), some not in the forebrain but in the cerebellum. These side progressions are in themselves linear. Examples are driving or other routine occupations while simultaneously pursuing a discussion with somebody else. Other multi-tasking may be time-sharing of awareness under alternating focus (as in driving a car while carrying on a conversation and simultaneously following directions). Thought does not jump arbitrarily between unrelated visualizations. Undisturbed thought sequences follow associated visualizations, most likely also when in the subconscious.

The connections of sequential thought phases are commonly called “thought associations. For example, the visualization of a car is associated with all its components, functions, and uses. Physiologically, associations between visualizations are accomplished through common usage (sharing) of neurons between groups that form related visualizations or through synaptic connections to neuron groups producing other visualization in the mind. Most visualizations in the brain are synaptically associated with several other visualizations, as memorized through prior experience or thought. Since the thought sequences in the brain never stand still, which of the synaptic connections will be pursued to present the next visualization in the mind?

First premise or hypothesis: “The synaptic couplings of visualizations (thought associations) have different strength (resulting in different strength of the secondary firing rate) as a function of three factors:

Habituation, as given by the number or rate of prior usage (thought and behavior habits as so commonly observable).

“Valuation” by practical experience, as in the importance or value of remembered coincidental or consequential impact and as often established by projections from the amygdala (as in preferentially recalling those items of a set which one had specifically good or bad experience with or in turning attention to associations that once were significant).

Perceived consequences (or benefit) as established through thought, also indicating a value of the respective thought association (for example, as in behaving for obtaining praise or positive audience response).

Any combination of these causes can lead to specific synaptic signal strength that is memorized with or physically expressed in the formation of most synaptic connections (associative links).”

It is important to note that the evaluation of experience and perceived consequences, often related to positive or negative emotions, requires connections between the forebrain and the amygdala and other parts of the limbic system of the brain where such signals are being processed. The effect of the amygdala connections were recently confirmed (bibliography #7) and their accidental or clinical disruption has shown the results expected from the above hypothesis. With personal “valuation” and perceived consequences being so important in synaptic coupling, psychological factors and temperament significantly influence the thought process and, consequently, creativity.

It seems easier to add new valuation (as through strong experiences or significant thought) than to dissolve old valuations (as in trying to undo aversions or prejudices, especially when even sparse selective observation allows ongoing confirmation).

Second premise or hypothesis: “It is postulated that, from among all the synaptic associations to other visualizations, the strongest synaptic connection to another association is selected for visualization sequencing (thought association) with lesser associations being actually suppressed from activation.”

Even if several next associations are receiving activation signals, only the one with the strongest synaptic excitation will be activated. All indications are that a newly activated, preferred association has a dampening effect on competitively possible alternative visualizations, keeping those at rest. This can be accomplished in the brain by nerval connections producing signal inhibition (as commonly observed), or by cross-connecting neurons such as those that can be found in retinal networks, or through brain-chemical processes on the neurotransmitter level.

The fact that the strongest signal transmission prevails (or is “selected”) in associative linkages alludes to biological evolution. This is truly significant. One can find a number of parallels between thought evolution and biological evolution. However, an exploration of this facet of practical creative thought leads beyond the scope of this paper.

The hypothesis presented above, regarding the selective continuity of associative thought, leads to the question whether all thought sequences are predetermined. This is not necessarily so. First, sensory perception can interrupt thought sequences, start new ones, and influence their course. Second, as with all the phenomena of nature, there is always an area of statistical distribution somewhere. If two possible associative linkages are of equal synaptic strength, statistical signal strength variation will lead to a temporary inequality and an unpredictable selection of one progression of thought sequences over the other. There could be some Heisenberg uncertainty principle in thought sequencing somewhere. Thus, minute momentary differences can lead to enormous consequences (chaos theory), which, taken together with the probabilistic occurrence of interrupting perceptions, leave room for transcendental considerations. Third, one’s own thought can impact synaptic valuation and consequent associative linkage, thereby influencing future thought patterns which, in turn, influence synaptic connections from then on. Systems with such feedback characteristics can become undetermined. In practical terms, this is the basis base for “freedom of will”.

The brain’s capability for focused thought

Little progress would have occurred in human civilization or in the travails of great thinkers if thought could not have been focused on given tasks, if all human thought would ramble on in often routine or random linkages or in response to any interrupting perception. How can focusing of thought sequences occur? A sequence of focused thought starts with the awareness of a task or problem. Focusing implies the retention of a task- or problem-defining thought phase, at least in short-term memory. Neurophysiologically, there is some indication that this is accomplished by means of some ongoing activation of such thought phases by means of neural loop connections involving the hippocampal structure of the brain (12). Long-term memory fixation can occur by means of subsequent formation of permanent synaptic connections.

Third premise or hypothesis: “Focusing of thought sequences is accomplished either through re-appearance of the focus thought in awareness or through back-referencing of later thought phases and newly occurring perceptions to earlier focus thoughts. It is stipulated that the signal intensity (nerval firing rate) of such later thought phases or newly occurring perceptions is enhanced proportionally to the synaptic match with the focus and its valuation with the original focus. This simple mechanism can keep thought sequencing related to the focus (“on track”) through focus-related selection of associations. More importantly, later thought phases, possibly also from focus-unrelated sequences, or later perceptions that strongly relate to a focus thought can now enter into associative linkage with the focus thought. This new linkage can possibly establish a new or more complex concept in the mind or new system of thought, which then is possibly valued as an innovation.”

The memorization (suspended activation) of focus thoughts should allow their reappearance in awareness and, thereby, the refocusing of thought when the thought intensity of other thought sequences fades to a low level as in the subconscious. This is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

The stipulated “back-referencing” of later thought phases or perceptions to focus thought can be proven by experiments in terms of cognitive psychology; but this has not been proven yet in terms of neurophysiology. What is implied is the following: As indicated in the discussion of the sequencing of thought phases, the synaptic match and its strength determine the activation level of subsequent synaptically linked associations. It is stipulated that the focus thought acts in that manner on phases of later thought sequences, enhancing their activation proportionally to possible synaptic match and strength. Several neural models can be thought of as producing this effect. Thus, focus-matching associations can prevail in the selection process of thought sequencing over unrelated associations. This can keep thought sequencing “on track” relative to the focus.

More importantly, it is stipulated that later thought phases - possibly also from focus-unrelated sequences, or later perceptions which strongly relate to a focus thought - can form firm synaptic linkages with the visualization that constitutes the focus thought and, thereby, enter into associative linkage with the focus thought. This new linkage has the potential to establish a more complex (and possibly new) concept in the mind, then possibly valued as an innovation. Since thought sequences are sequences of associatively linked memory elements (visualizations), innovation must be seen as a combinatorial process combining already existing memory elements (including the focus) and, possibly, new perceptions in a novel way to form new visualizations of unique or more complex nature.

In this sense, the back-referencing effect of focused thought is the key element of mental creativity. Given the importance of this effect, further research and experiments in the fields of neurophysiology and cognitive psychology are suggested in this area.

With personal “valuation” and perceived consequences being so important in synaptic coupling and the consequent activation of associated visualizations, psychological factors - such as personal temperament, thought habits, or the psychological environment - significantly influence back-referencing and, consequently, creativity.

The transition from subconscious to conscious thought and recognition of “ideas”.

Awareness shall be defined as the momentary presence of a visualization or perception in the foreground of thought (activation state), in contrast to memorized visualizations or memorized perceptions. Only thought in this state leads to consequential reflexes or other reactions. Consciousness of a thought shall be defined as the retention of a thought or perception in short-term memory, which acts as a temporary focus.

The larger concept of “consciousness” and self-awareness, as used in philosophy, is possibly nothing but a virtual effect resulting from remembered thought, and is as developed among living beings (and futuristic computers) from the capacity for the memorization of thought and complex associative linkage of such thought. Consequently, “self-awareness” and “consciousness” are proportional to the capacity (quantity and duration) of memory for thoughts and perceptions and to their associative interconnectivity (addressability, usability). Negatively worded, when there is no memory for thoughts and perceptions, there is no related consciousness. In other words, availability and associative linkage of memory of one’s own thought (and perceptions, including communicated thought) is necessary and sufficient to explain “consciousness” in the philosophical and psychological sense.

It is known that short-term memory is limited, and long-term memory requires prior short-term memory retention. Consequently, only a fraction of the very large amount of frontal lobe signal activities (thoughts) leads to memorization and consequent consciousness. Most thought remains in the subconscious and is not memorized. However, everybody has experienced how subconscious thought or new perceptions can appear inadvertently in consciousness.

Fourth premise or hypothesis: “The transition of a thought phase (visualization) from subconscious thought to awareness and appearance in consciousness (appearance of an idea) is based on its attaining sufficient signal intensity (nerval firing rate). Such increase in firing rate can possibly result from significant back-referencing to an earlier focus.”

In practical terms: The signal strength of neurons in the frontal lobes is initiated primarily through associative triggering, mostly of large groups of nerves constituting a visualization. Among visualizations or thought phases, it is postulated that only those of sufficient competitive signal strength gain access to short-term memory (awareness). This is very much in line with the economy of biological functions.

In other words, the appearance of a sudden “idea” results from the back-referencing of a much later, possibly subconscious thought phase to an earlier focus, with sufficient resulting signal strength that appearance in awareness is produced. Such substantial signal strength (firing rate) may result from the synaptic match or the perceived consequences of such back-referencing. Two typical examples from the literature on creativity, Kekule’s idea for the benzene ring and Poincaré’s solution for the Fuchsian Functions, can be interpreted that way.

As stated before, with personal “valuation” and perceived consequences being so important in synaptic coupling and thought phase activation, psychological factors and temperament significantly influence idea recognition or idea generation.

It is known that calming of the brain generally leads from dominant left-side thought to otherwise subconscious right-side thought. Therefore, many of the sudden and very important “ideas” have occurred during periods of relaxation and have the holistic and three-dimensional aspects of right-side thought (as the discovery of the benzene ring by Kekule, who had studied architecture in his earlier years). Right-side thought is more holistic, possibly due to the greater distances in synaptic connections or cross-connections (see the larger amount of white material). Therefore, right-side concepts can often be “fuzzy”, not leading to “fuzzy logic” (a misnomer) but to “logic with fuzzy concepts”. This makes the human mind so extremely successful in the many unclear phases of practical life. Therefore, calming (de-focusing) of the left side of the brain, in order to provide conscious access to the often nondominant right side of the brain may be an important technique for creativity improvement (3 & 16).

Summary comments regarding the limitations and the enhancement of creative thought

One can arrive at some practical conclusions from the theory as presented above:

Innovation, being the result of a combinatorial process, depends on both, the suitability of foci and the mental building blocks available to the creative minds, whether in individuals or in teams. The realization of this fact leads to an understanding of some of the limitations and possible enhancements of creativity. The realization of this fact can also lead to a learning process directed toward improved creativity.

Without thought focus, open questions, or new perspectives, no creative thought can be expected. Inversely, thought focus on tasks, open questions, and new perspectives prompt creative thought as suitable mental building blocks or observations become available. Thus, alertness, work environment, culture, and psychological attitudes also influence creativity.

In the start-up phase of an innovative process, individuals with a wider scope or a wider variety of experiences, or team compositions combining a variety of backgrounds add to the availability of a variety of mental building blocks (Darwin and Wallace both discovered the evolution theory upon reading Malthus’ Principles of Population). In the detailed phase, more narrowly focused experts may offer more and more suitable building blocks in better accessibility.

Innovation also depends on the accessibility (associative connection in the brain) of the mental building blocks for the thought process, either from learning or through communication from the environment (one of the “Silicon Valley”-effects). Accessibility can be improved through use of memory elements in a variety of mental or personal associations. Building blocks are more interestingly available for individuals with a wide variety of active experiences or active contacts.

The combinatorial character of creative thought indicates that innovation is necessarily continuous (gap-less). For example, a culture that does not know the wheel can not invent cars and machines till the wheel becomes known to it. The recent development of the data processing industry is another example of the continuity in innovation.

With personal “valuation” of associations and perceived consequences being so important in thought sequencing, new-concept generation through back-referencing, and sudden idea generation, certain psychological factors, such as the traits of personal temperament, the psychology of the work environment, and established thought patterns significantly influence creativity. The psychological factors, already empirically known and widely respected, include shyness or daring, presentation skills, liking or seeking of innovation (some of which was proven to be birth-order related), acceptance and reward for new ideas in the given environment, the right middle between pressure and relaxation, and more.

Not only the indicated relationship of synaptic formation to the limbic system, but also the increasingly better-known brain chemistry, explain the impact of stimulants, sedatives, and other psycho-medications on creativity, be they coffee, alcohol, or neurotransmitters or hormones produced by the body, some influenced by proper nutrition and exercise.

Considering the brain’s selection of a course in thought sequencing, one can say that the brain optimizes speed, economy, and personal comfort in handling common tasks, problems, or threats over exhaustiveness of inquiry, optimizing of results, and personal exposure. In other words, the brain provides, at first, a likely solution or idea in the shortest time and with the least effort based on past experience, not the best solution based on tedious search.

By means of this theory, it was shown that the brain is the combination of an analog and a digital signal processor (without “clock” synchronization). The analog parameters of brain processes (synaptic strength and nerval firing rate) gain new significance (in combination with the “digital” modeling of the brains synaptic interconnectivity) for the full understanding of mental creativity and “idea” appearance.

Much practical innovation and problem-solving are actually based on pattern recognition, not on forming new concepts. New concepts may be the result of a newly recognized pattern. Therefore, possibly the major portion of all research effort lies in searching for a large quantity of new data points for statistical evaluation and/or subsequent pattern recognition. Some pattern recognition of sensory inputs, even some highly complex pattern recognition, is provided by the subject sensory reception areas of the brain - for example, the visual cortex. The question arises whether a more complex or abstract pattern recognition among perceptions, thought, or research-originated data points can be called a “creative process”. Judged by consequences, it certainly is. Is the interpretation of a Rorschach blot a creative skill? Is pattern recognition, whether in science or business, a special skill? How does it function? Indications are that the explanation of the process of complex pattern recognition lies close to the combinatorial creative process described in this paper.

Some corollary comments

Most spoken or written sentences are unique. Many qualify as being creative. Very few are significant. What, then, constitutes “significance” or “quality of creativity”? The evaluation is subjective, being related to newness (to the one who does the thinking, to his or her associates, or to society at large), association span, complexity of the problem, and significance of the consequences. The brain does not differentiate between more or less important creative thought. There is no indication in neurophysiological or cognitive-psychological terms of any difference in process between insignificant creativity and important creativity leading to significant innovation. The difference in an individual’s qualitative level of creativity may result from the availability of significant “building blocks”, the range of associative links available, and the recognition of significant consequences (see the example of Wallace’s recognition of the theory of evolution).

In the practical world, as in industry, unlimited creativity is not always desirable. Any group or company can afford only so many new ideas or perspectives. What often counts for success is the detailed implementation of an idea through many small steps of practical design and testing.

This leads to the problem of innovation management. Some inventors (but, by far, not all) inventors possess sufficient focus and discipline to work efficiently. Others need a degree of supervision for goal-oriented efficiency. Supervisors are necessarily somewhat structured, result oriented, and authoritarian, whatever style they adopt. Good inventors are, by nature, anti-authoritarian and explorative, and they often think in multiple perspectives.

Optimizing creativity may require a combination of tension and competitiveness for focus enhancement and undisturbed relaxation for inclusion of right-sided creative thought.

A more serious problem of innovation management lies in prioritizing ideas based on judgment of economic feasibility. This judgment is one of the most valuable qualities of management.

Bibliography

1. Curchland, "On the Nature of Theories: A Neurocomputational Perspective""

2. Dennett, "Consciousness Explained"

3. Edwards, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain"

4. Glass & Holyoak, "Cognition"

5. Johnson-Laird, "Freedom and Constraint in Creativity"

6. Kandel & Schwartz, "Principles of Neural Science"

7. LeDoux, "Emotion, Memory and the Brain", Scientific American, June 1994

8. MacCrimmon & Wagner, "Stimulating Ideas Through Creativity Software", University of British Columbia, Faculty of Commerce

9. Miller, "Scientific Creativity"

10. Medin & Ross, "Cognitive Psychology"

11. Morgan, "Imaginization", Sage Publications

12. Petri & Mishkin, "Behaviorism, Cognitivism and the Neuropsychology of Memory", American Scientist Jan.-Feb. 1994

13. Reinfelder, D-81549 Munich, Muenchbergerstr. 9, various publications

14. Thornsbury, "Definition of the Creative Process"

15. Siemens ZT-Kolloquium, Munich, Dec. 11, 1984: “Programmieren mit der rechten Hirnhaelfte"

16. Springer & Deutsch, "Left Brain, Right Brain"

17. Sternberg, "The Nature of Creativity"

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download